Fort Worth weekly gazette. [volume] (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1887-05-20
PROHIBITION.
What the Newspapers OF the State Say
OF the Contest I'm Texas Over
Alcohol and Malt
Pro and Arguments Con Which
Arc Favored With the Usual Jour
naIistic Condlm ents.

Arguments Pro and Arguments Con "hlch
Arc Favored With the Usual jour
naIistic Condiments.
What wonderful boom the grape
growing and wine-making business has
had in Texas in the last three or four
weeks To believe the ants, our leading
industry is the making Of wine from ma
tive grapes, which industry is to be de-
stroyed by prohibition. BY the way,
what was the amount of moEey brought
into Texas by expectations of native
wines last year?-[Wills PORT News.
-
We have CuIberson and Coke, two of
the brainiest and most influential men,
bers of the American Congress. The for
mer is for and the latter against the
amendment. All Texas is proud of them.
Neither of them have ever faltered in their
devotion to the people In Congress they
have fought the encroachments OF grasp
ing monoponsts, step by STEP with all
the power of their giant minds, and have
left their impress for good upon the legis-
Iation Of thatsugust body. When this can
vass is ended and the result told, the
state and nation will still need their ser
vices, and no sort of elimination or re-
elimination should be INDUCED in to their
personal or political injury. We are for
prohibition because we believe it is right.
Mr.. Coke is opposed to it because ne be-
lieves it to be bad policy, but as q Demo
crat we are for Coke "Without variable
ness or change" because we have Unlim-
tied faith in his integrity and in his devo-
ton to his country and people. The ants
should view Mr.. CulbersOn from the same
high plane, and we believe the more in
telligent and patriotic will Sulphur
Springs Gazette.
-
The argument that the sale of whisky
should not be prohibited because it would
deprive the state of the revenue derived
from the license tax, and thus increase
the ad valOrem tax, is simply monstrous.
It had as well be claimed that dog-fght-
ers should be licensed, bawdY houses Civ
en- charters of privilege, obscene exhihl-
tons tolerated and brutal prize fighters
permitted to engage in their bloody en-
counters, provided they pay license tax,
and then lessen the ad ValoTem tax, and
make the burden Of supporting the gov
eminent fell lighter upon the farmers,
and others in Legitimate, decent, honest
occupations. The argument has been
advanced time and again. 1t is an
appeal to the cupidity and peck
cts of the citizen. 1t is hoped
that the people are too noble and high
minded to tolerate evil because it will
save them few dollars in taxes Aus
tin Tidings.
You will find greater consumption of
alcoholic liquors in prohibition states
than in other states d. G. Giddings.
If that's so, who do whisky and beer
manufacturers squander thousands Of
dollars to beat prohibition? Are they
idiots and FOOLS? No, no, Mr.. Giddings
is hog wild, and has made statement he
can't prove. The brewers and whisky
manufacturers know full well that pro-
hlbition means death to their business,
and they are willing to spend thousands
of dollars to defeat it. Kaufman Sun.
~
If man may call anything his own why
not assert claim to his stomach? If it
is his what business has any other man to
say what he shall put into it or keep out
of it? If man gets drunk by putting
into his stomach whisky, punish him for it
as you would If he had committed any
other crime. A personal liberty which
doesn't include the stomach would be q
tame affair for a Texan Waco Exam
iner.
-
The cities in Texas will vote against
prohibition, AMI the country for it. With
this as starter you can readily figure out
what the result will be- Austin
Tidings.
Hon. W. X. Homan, in his speech here
on Saturday last, shot very wide of the
mark when he said there were not over
500 gallons of wine made IN Texas. The
Standard believes 1t can safely say, with
out fear of contradiction, that more than
10000 gallons are made in Austin county,
alone. But the fact that Mr.. Homan
knew that no one was to answer him may
have had a great deal to do with his state
ment. Mr.. Homan is one of the sblest of
the prohibition champions, and the Stand
ard is unwilling to concede that he is not
better posted upon the subject of wine
making in Texas than his speech would
imply. Such a concession would be an
insult to Mr.. Homan's intelligence.
Coming from such high source, his
statement is calculated to deceive those
who think but little for themselves, and
this, perhaps, may have been the motive
that caused him to make it. a vote Sc
cured, either by foul means or fair, is just
so much for the cause. There is no de-
nying that grape culture in Texas,
though yet in it's infancy, is begin
ming to assume large proportions, and to
capture the votes of those who believe
that prohibition would cripple or destroy
this industry, 1t is necessary for the ad-
vocates of the measure to show, if posi-
Bile, that the quantity of wine produced is
too insignificant to work any injury to
the vineyards of the state. Mr.. Homan
made quite a lengthy address, but the
very thing that was most expected of
him he failed to do. That was to explain
how the adoption Of the amendment would
restrain men from using Intoxicating
liquors. That, above all things, was what
his audience was most anxious to hear.
1t was easy enough for him to point out a
way to close up the saloons and stop the
manufacture of liquors save for certain
purposes, but in regard to preventing the
latter from being obtained and used as
beverage he did not appear to be well
posted, as was only too apparent by the
II, NH bo er-odaH %